Dear Andy,
First let me compliment once again on your ability to right long but matter
of fact replies. And I am fine here in UAE, thanx.
In fact there shouldn't have the need to say that much as my question is
entirely on the 'possible future application of Chappell's technology', and
your reply about that is sufficient for my purpose.
But I think I have one more point to discuss with you about what you said
below.......
((.........My sense is that tailor-making a remedy for an individual
characteristic
totality would be more difficult than doing it for the group totality of a
pandemic chronic disease. A group totality is a set of symptoms confirmable
with quite a bit of certainty from a large data set. An individual case may
hinge on a totality based on any number of symptom genres--some subtle, some
metaphorical. Making a remedy for an individual would, I think be much more
difficult than what Peter is already doing. Our traditional comparator
method of finding a match with what is in our materia medica catalogued from
the effects of potentized substances and forces/emanations on a population
of testers (in provings by dissimilarity or clinically by similarity) might
be easier........))
In my opinion the reverse of which is -or can also be- the truth. In
ascertaining the medicinal powers of substances when one proves them the so
called materia medica (MM) becomes more complete as the number and variety
of provers increase. Which brings out the fullest picture of the drug. At
the same time a more complete MM may become too general in editing (unless
we keep ALL THE SYMTOMS produced in proving and use them in comparing with
the sick) and at least in some cases that will hinder a perfect matching
when we try to find out the similimum in any case. This is besides the
handicap already provings (MM) have due to geographical/racial/..
constraint. Tailor making remedies will be a best solution to this.
Also tailor making an individual remedy will have only the exact amount of
difficulty as we face today in our accurate case taking. Because the
technology of converting it into algorithms and so on will be the same once
it is effectively pass the R&D stage. On the contrary if this particular
aspect cannot be mechanised (means peter or some like geniuses can do it in
their head only....) all this should be stopped soon. So in my opinion they
will be more effective and almost 100% sure to act.
Another thing is that even though Peter's AIDS is doing well due to its
peculiar evolutionary nature, cancer or MS will be more difficult to be
treated in the present peter style i.e. disease similimum due to the same
reasons stated above. That they have more complex nature across continents
(geographical/racial) due to different parameters included over thousands of
years' of evolution. (where as AIDS is a very young illness and it still
have more or less the same picture every where!). So creating disease
similimum for them requires more work as in your terms.
I will wait for your opinion.
I think within two days we will be discussing more as I have an outline of
something why Peter's method works and I will give that for your kind
consideration.
Regards,
Dr. Abdul Gafar.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
Sim.....II
-
Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:33 pm
Sim.....II
on 2/8/05 6:19 AM, Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at
chief@homedpa.com wrote:
((( Dear dr. G--
You may be right that an individ. rx may not be more difficult than our
current methods. But what I am seeing is this:
========
Current case-taking, comparative method---
========
We have to elicit the characteristic symptoms, and we have the advantage of
being able to refer to our database of remedies (in our head mainly) as a
backdrop. If we get 2-3 good clues (legs of stool) it can lead to a picture
of an rx, and then we can try to confirm or eliminate it. If that works,
then we can predict the rest of the case. Or we may get a picture of the
case, and need to analyze using intuitive and all faculties in order to come
up with an insight. Or do any number of case analysis avenues to come up
with an angle on what is first to do and what rx to use to do it. This is
difficult enough, but it is like a puzzle, instead of making something from
scratch.
=========
Constructing a complete sx picture to synthesize by P. Chappell technology:
=========
For PC's chronic genus rx--he is characterizing a group hahnemannian
totality of a disease, not a person. This is much more cut and dried. And
the symptoms come out of an amalgam of cases. If one is taking the case of
an individual, one must be thorough and precise and it is easy to miss
something important. One must be able to characterize intangibles. One has
no reference with which to determine an existing totality, so it is
impossible to tell if something significant is missing.
Thus, I think synthesizing an rx would be only a last resort if a remedy
cannot be found by comparative means using the mm. There may be methods to
make it more routine, but casetaking is hard enough when trying to focus on
getting to the heart of the matter (what needs to be cured, core "vital
gesture", core delusion; peuliars, etc.) Seems like it would be difficult
to reinvent a case It is certainly possible. But is it easier than what we
do now? My guess is not, unless an rx in mm cannot be found. Just my
opinion. It would be a great advance to have that tool avail for individ
cases also.
Dr G wrote:
Because the
((( That is a good point. Hard to include symptoms of cases of cancer from
1500 years ago in the group anamnesis.
(( Ok.
Best,
Andy
chief@homedpa.com wrote:
((( Dear dr. G--
You may be right that an individ. rx may not be more difficult than our
current methods. But what I am seeing is this:
========
Current case-taking, comparative method---
========
We have to elicit the characteristic symptoms, and we have the advantage of
being able to refer to our database of remedies (in our head mainly) as a
backdrop. If we get 2-3 good clues (legs of stool) it can lead to a picture
of an rx, and then we can try to confirm or eliminate it. If that works,
then we can predict the rest of the case. Or we may get a picture of the
case, and need to analyze using intuitive and all faculties in order to come
up with an insight. Or do any number of case analysis avenues to come up
with an angle on what is first to do and what rx to use to do it. This is
difficult enough, but it is like a puzzle, instead of making something from
scratch.
=========
Constructing a complete sx picture to synthesize by P. Chappell technology:
=========
For PC's chronic genus rx--he is characterizing a group hahnemannian
totality of a disease, not a person. This is much more cut and dried. And
the symptoms come out of an amalgam of cases. If one is taking the case of
an individual, one must be thorough and precise and it is easy to miss
something important. One must be able to characterize intangibles. One has
no reference with which to determine an existing totality, so it is
impossible to tell if something significant is missing.
Thus, I think synthesizing an rx would be only a last resort if a remedy
cannot be found by comparative means using the mm. There may be methods to
make it more routine, but casetaking is hard enough when trying to focus on
getting to the heart of the matter (what needs to be cured, core "vital
gesture", core delusion; peuliars, etc.) Seems like it would be difficult
to reinvent a case It is certainly possible. But is it easier than what we
do now? My guess is not, unless an rx in mm cannot be found. Just my
opinion. It would be a great advance to have that tool avail for individ
cases also.
Dr G wrote:
Because the
((( That is a good point. Hard to include symptoms of cases of cancer from
1500 years ago in the group anamnesis.
(( Ok.
Best,
Andy